Crying wolf again?

Hina Hafeezullah Ishaq

en there is the view that Syria is a staunch ally of Iran in the region; removing it makes access to Iran easier Even the heavens must have cried. I did. The earth must have shook with grief as it was forced to contain their weight. I did. They seemed to be sleeping, dressed in their night clothes, just like they should have been, but they were not. They were dead. Hundreds, of them: infants, toddlers and children, covered with sheets, which had been scattered with ice, to keep their little bodies from decaying in the intense heat. Rows and rows of little angels lying there on the hard floor, a gruesome testament to the monstrosity, abomination and moral depravity man is capable of. These were the images, the stills. Then there were the videos, of helpless doctors and distraught parents, watching children and adults alike, convulsing and writhing, struggling to breathe their last. Yes, these were the children of Syria. The Syrian government has been accused of launching a chemical attack. There are reports alleging sarin, a nerve gas, was used. The UN is cautious. It says a toxic substance was used; its team of inspectors is still gathering evidence amidst sniper shots. The US was quick to pounce on this golden opportunity to launch a possible military offensive; it cried chemical weapons. The UK and France decided to join the US outrage. Images of Obama and Cameron brought back memories of Bush and Blair and the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was allegedly hiding in Iraq, a pretext for an unwarranted and illegal invasion. Except, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Russia, China and Iran have warned against any military action the west plans to take against the Syrian government. The moral outrage being shown by the west, especially the US, is ironically comical and immensely hypocritical. Everything is about the US interests. If there has been chemical warfare in Syria, regardless of whether the government or the rebels used it, it is against the USs interest, so, I guess accumulating and developing chemical weapons itself, to be used against others, is definitely in the USs interest. Then the UK, like Marys little lamb, says that military action should be taken to deter the use of chemical weapons, but fortunately as days have passed, succumbing to pressure by the opposition, there is now talk of proceeding with consensus. A resolution has been submitted by the UK to the UN Security Council. In an immense moral outrage that only works one way, the US, UK and France decided to launch a unilateral targeted military strike on Syrian soil regardless of UN approval before the reports of the UN inspectors even came back. Under these, what now seems to be, the oft repeated circumstances, one wonders what exactly is the role of the UN if it cannot leash rogue countries that violate international laws, its charter and act in self-interest, without any justifiable or imminent threat to their sovereignty being present? Are sanctions only for weak countries? Are laws and lofty ideals applicable only to the underdeveloped and oppressed nations? The UN Charter was signed in 1945. The Preamble to it, in showing the resolve of the people, states: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in

our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and; to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained... It talks about uniting our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest... The UN Charter states that the organisation is based on the sovereign equality of all its members and mandates that, All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Is there something wrong with this picture? The UN Security Council boasts of 15 members, 10 elected, five permanent members with the right of veto the Peoples Republic of China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. The Security Council holds the mandate to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with the Charter to maintain or restore international peace and security. So far, the resolution submitted by the UK on Syria purportedly in order to protect civilians has been deadlocked. Russia, using common sense, wants the UN to complete its investigation before any resolution can be discussed. A study published in 2009 on the effect of US air strikes in Iraq over a period of six years since the invasion found that the number of women and children killed in the air raids was disproportionately high; a staggering 39 percent of casualties were innocent children. Does anyone even have an idea how many children and civilians have been killed and are still being executed in targeted air and drone strikes in Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Unlike the children of Syria, the children killed in air strikes do not give the illusion of sleeping. Unlike the children of Syria, they do not even have an entire body intact for burial, their limbs scattered, their bodies mutilated beyond comprehension. How is this not worthy of intervention? How are coldblooded executions in foreign lands, controlled and carried out by equally coldblooded depraved individuals, sitting thousands of miles away in cushy operational rooms not a breach of international norms and peace? Why is this not a moral obscenity? Or perhaps John Kerry does not consider these targets human? There are references to Obamas Red Line. In an interview he said: When you start seeing chemical weapons used on a large scale...that starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region. So, it is not about the children or the civilians, is it? Then there is the view that Syria is a staunch ally of Iran in the region; removing it makes access to Iran easier. Iran is a rogue country and a threat to the west and Israel. And it has oil, reportedly among the largest reserves in the world. It allegedly refuses to sell it in US dollars. Libya is at number seven in Forbes list of oil-rich countries of the world. Gaddafi reportedly had plans to create a gold dinar for trade in

oil instead of the US dollar. Motive, anyone? The sad thing about the UN is that it is not all that united. There is no collective interest or maintenance of international peace. With countries like the US working in mala fide self-interest to the detriment of other nations, the purpose of the UN already stands defeated. The chemical attack in Syria is a crime against humanity, and should be dealt with accordingly. Meanwhile, is the (dis-)United Nations finally ready to stop those crying wolf again?